Riding the Raisina Tiger

Riding the Raisina Tiger - a Politico-military thriller about an Army Chief who decided to take things into his own hands. AVAILABLE FOR FREE DOWNLOAD ON 26 JAN ON OCCASION OF REPUBLIC DAY FROM https://www.amazon.com/Riding-Raisina-Tiger-Story-military-ebook/dp/B01ALCCNSS

India and the US
on Sunday expressed their solidarity with the people of France and said the
countries should come forward to fight terrorism together.

Kicking off the
seventh edition of the “Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit” in
Gandhinagar, Modi condemned the Paris terror attack and said India firmly stood
behind the European nation in its fight against terror. Modi said India had
been a victim of terrorism and there was a need for countries to fight
terrorism jointly. “We will win over terrorism,” he said.

Before Modi, US
Secretary of State John Kerry also called upon the nations to launch a united
fight against terrorism.Referring to
the terror attack in Paris last week, Kerry said no act of terror will ever
stop "the march of freedom" and the entire world is with the people
of France, not just in "anger and outrage" but in "solidarity
and commitment" to the cause of confronting extremism.

Kerry said the US
and India particularly share greater responsibility when it comes to fight
against terror as the two largest democracies in the world were committed to
freedom of the people. “We will together fight against all acts of extremism
and will never allow it to succeed in any part of the world,” he said.

Kerry also drew a
parallel between Modi and US President Barack Obama saying both leaders come
from very simple and ordinary families and have succeeded in making to the top
of their respective countries. “Coming from an ordinary family,Obama went on to become the US President...in
India, a boy selling tea at the railway platform and bus station has made it to
the Prime Minister’s house — 7 Race Course Road, Delhi,” he said.

The US Secretary
of State said Obama was "very excited" to be the first US President
to be the chief guest at India's Republic Day celebrations later this month.
"And he will the first sitting US President to visit India twice while in
office," Kerry said. “He (Obama) is looking forward to his impending visit
to further strengthen the ties between the two countries,” said Kerry.

Terming it as a
perfect time to tap "incredible possibilities" between India and the
US, Kerry said programmes like 'Make in India' can be a win-win situation for
the entire planet.

"The moment
has never been more right to tap the incredible possibilities between India and
the US." He added that the economic partnership is already getting
stronger by the day. Lauding Modi’s pet slogan “Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas”,
Kerry said the slogan needs to be adopted at the global level.

India and Japan
bilateral relations will come under extensive review at the 8th strategic
dialogue to be held here this week with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj
co-chairing the meeting with her Japanese counterpart Fumio Kishida who will be
paying an official visit from January 16 to 18.

Kishida, who
embarks on a four-nation trip, will reach here en route France, Belgium and
Britain, for the January 17 dialogue, the first such engagement after Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe retained power in a snap poll late last year.

Ahead of the
visit, the minister was quoted by domestic Kyodo news agency as saying that
during his trip to France, Kishida plans to discuss the fight against terrorism
with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius in Paris.

Condemning the
incident in Paris, he said: “We must never tolerate vicious terrorism and
challenges against the freedom of speech and the press. Sharing this view with
the international community, we must face up to the fight against terrorism.”

Referring to the
purpose of the four-nation tour starting Thursday, Kishida said: “I would like
to take this opportunity to send a message to the world as to how our country
will contribute to the stability and prosperity of the international community
and the region, and how we will try to address global challenges” in
partnership with the four countries plus the European Union.

“Both sides will review all
aspects of the bilateral relations and exchange views on regional and
international issues of mutual interest,” a spokesperson for the MEA said.

Amidst
intelligence inputs indicating “concerted attempts” by international terror
groups to target the political leadership of world’s two largest democracies,
the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) has deployed 30 explosive detection
dog teams along with strike commandos to provide anti-sabotage cover to US President
Barrack Obama during his visit to New Delhi later this month.

“The threat is of placing
sophisticated remotely operated improvised explosive devices at sensitive
locations of the Republic Day celebrations and in hotels where the US President
and his entourage would stay, by either radicalised ‘lone-wolf’ operatives
under orders from across the border or sleeper cells, that have activated their
wireless chatter which has been intercepted by our intelligence agencies and
corroborated by the US intelligence,” a statement issued by the ITBP has
claimed.

ITBP dog teams, including
“strategic-depth reserves” based at an undisclosed location, would sanitise the
Rajpath, India Gate lawns and the entire route of Obama, right from the time he
lands in Air Force One at the Delhi Airport and travels to his hotel and then
to Rajpath in an armoured limousine. The entire area has been cordoned off by
ITBP commandos. The nodal agency for raising and training dogs for security
duties, ITBP is the largest single contributor of dogs for this highly
sensitive security deployment in New Delhi, using more canines than the
combined number deployed by the Army, BSF, SPG, NSG and CISF.

ITBP dogs and those provided
to other forces are trained at its National Dog Training Center co-located with
its Basic Training Center at Bhanu near Chandigarh. It has recently been
upgraded with additional kennels and training infrastructure.

Private sector
conglomerate Kalyani Group will set up a Rs 600 crore plant in Gujarat for
overhaul and upgrade of the Army’s armoured fighting _vehicles (AFVs).

In addition, its
proposal to manufacture radars and defence electronics indigenously have also
been approved.

A memorandum of
understanding (MoU) to set up the plant was signed between the Kalyani Group
and the Government of Gujarat at the ongoing Vibrant Gujarat Summit today, said
a statement issued by the group.

The plant for the
AFV will be set up at the port city of Dholera at the head of the Gulf of
Khambhat, which has been earmarked as a special investment region. _It would
commence operations in 2016 and generate 2,500 jobs.

AFVs with the
_Army include tanks, infantry combat vehicles, armoured personnel carriers,
recce vehicles, engineer and recovery vehicles as well as specialist
battlefield support and command vehicles.

The locations and
modalities of setting up plants for manufacture of radars and defence
_electronics are yet to be decided.

“This is in line with the
vision of the Prime Minister towards ‘Make in India’. We are confident that
given an opportunity we can become the manufacturing hub for the World,” Amit B
Kalyani, Executive Director of the Kalyani Group said.

To bring clarity
on the imperatives and challenges faced by India with regards to its security,
a Roundtable of experts was held recently. Starting today, we bring you
excerpts of the key presentations and recommendations

In the obtaining
global security environment, our country’s foremost concern is to protect and
safeguard our territorial integrity and ensure the safety and security of all
our citizens. Sustained development and progress are possible only if there is
peace and normalcy within the realm.

We are a large
country, with land boundaries of over 15,000 km, maritime frontiers of over
7,500 km, open skies all around and multiple threats from various quarters. I
shall reflect briefly on certain aspects of internal security.

The maintenance of
national security faces serious challenges on many fronts, among which are:

Pakistan’s continuing proxy war in Jammu
and Kashmir.

Activities of the Pakistan-based jihadi
terrorist groups which have established their networks in various parts of
India, particularly in the hinterland.

Activities of the Naxal groups which have
established “liberated” zones in large areas, where their writ runs.

Considering the
serious security challenges faced by the country, it is urgently necessary that
we must have a reliable security management apparatus which safeguards all
important arenas of activity which would, inter alia, include food security,
water security, economic security, energy security, science and technology
security, environmental security and so on.

It is relevant to
note that in the management of matters relating to internal and external
security, a rather clear line has developed in the past decades. Thus, the
Ministry of Defence is responsible for the defence of India and the Ministry of
Home Affairs is responsible for internal security. And then there are a number
of central agencies like the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing,
Joint Intelligence Centre, and several other institutions which provide
important information and support to the Home and Defence Ministries and other
authorities involved in security management at the central level.

One approach to
security

In the years past,
the Centre-State relations in the arena of security management have been
largely based on periodic consultations. Such arrangements are inadequate in
the obtaining security environment in which terrorists strike at will, with
total surprise and lightning speed.If
our response has to be prompt and effective, there is no scope whatsoever for
any time being lost in consultations. On the contrary, it is of vital
importance that we lose no more time in building the capacity to prevent, pre-empt
and, whenever a situation arises, to effectively respond without any loss of
time.

And this leads me
to the next question — do we have a national policy and a supporting security
management apparatus which can deliver an immediate response to a sudden terrorist
strike anywhere in the country? The answer is that, so far, we do not have a
cohesive National Security Policy which is fully agreed to between the Centre
and the States. We also do not have a countrywide logistical framework, manned
by thorough professionals, which has the capacity of speedily responding to any
arising emergency.

After the Centre
has finalised a bipartisan National Security Policy, in agreement with the
States, it would be essential to lose no time in critically reviewing the efficacy
of the extant security management apparatus, whether run by the Centre or the
States, and to particularly assess the training, experience and professionalism
of the personnel who are operating the system.

In the past years,
the States have generally taken the position that the Centre must not do
anything which interferes with their constitutional jurisdiction to maintain
public order within their realms. In taking such a posture, the States have
erred in failing to recognise the crucial difference between dealing with law
and order situations within their territories and the pan-India management of
serious security threats. The States have perhaps also not recognised that
terrorists are no respecters of territorial boundaries. As the attacks on Parliament
and in Mumbai have shown, a terrorist strike anywhere in the country is an
attack on the unity and integrity of India.

It also needs to
be noted that varied serious problems relate to the functioning of the State
police forces which, for want of resources and prolonged neglect, suffer from
significant professional and logistical inadequacies and are, therefore, not
invariably capable of effectively handling the more serious internal
disturbances which may arise in the States. As experience in the past more than
half a century has shown, whenever a serious disorder is arising in any part of
the country, the affected State promptly seeks help from the Union Ministry of
Home Affairs. And the latter has been traditionally responding by deploying
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) to assist the States in dealing with arising
insurgencies. It is relevant to also note that whenever situations have arisen
which cannot be handled by the CAPF, the Centre has been invariably deploying
the Army in aid of the civil authority.

It is a matter for
concern that whenever a serious disorder is emerging in any State, the Union
Home Ministry has hardly ever been in a position to question the State
government concerned about the root causes of the problem and why these were
neglected to allow a serious situation to develop. Another worrying aspect is
that, as has been seen in the North–East region, Army deployments for extended
periods have invariably led to complaints about human rights violations and
other serious problems.

This brings me to
the next question: What is the Centre’s role and responsibility in regard to
the management of internal security which is now inextricably intermeshed with
external security? The Constitution prescribes that it is duty of the Union to
protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance. Thus,
there is no doubt about the Centre’s constitutional obligation to ensure that
internal security is effectively managed in the States. However, in actual
practice, the Centre-State relations in the arena of internal security
management have been largely defined by “requests” and “persuasions” to elicit
the “cooperation” of the States. The pursuit of a persuasive approach has led
to many avoidable failures, particularly as cooperative arrangements do not
invariably enable prompt and effective handling of security situations.

Engaging,
involving States

The Centre is
constitutionally empowered to issue directives to the States to take preventive
action in regard to arising situations. Instead, the Union Home Ministry has
traditionally resorted to merely sending “advisories” to the States about
likely developments on the security front. This approach has not invariably
proved effective.

To arrive at
reliable Central–State understanding in the arena of security management, it is
extremely important to establish the requisite mutual trust and reliability. In
this context, the Government of India may do well to reconsider whether the
central security apparatus should continue to be run only by its own cadres.
Instead, for progressively establishing the desired levels of mutual trust, it
may be beneficial to follow a joint Central-State management approach which
will, over time, eradicate the strong doubts and suspicions which are
recurringly voiced by the States.

The Inter-State
Council, which is headed by the Prime Minister, is a very good forum for
arriving at the required Centre-State understanding in the arena of national
security management. Another approach could be to also set up Empowered
Committees comprising Home Ministers of States to deal with various complex
security management issues, e.g. the powers and jurisdiction of the National
Investigation Agency (NIA). I refer to the NIA as despite the fact that issues
relating to this agency have been endlessly debated in the past years, it still
does not have even the powers enjoyed by the CBI viz powers of search, seizure,
deputing its functionaries abroad for investigations, etc. Debates about the
structure and functioning of the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) have
also been continuing for the past over a decade now. Such important matters
could be quickly resolved by involving the States in meaningful discussions.
After 9/11, the joint-management approach has worked extremely well in the USA
where Joint Terrorism Task Forces have been working effectively from the
highest federal level to the municipal levels in the States of America. I would
reiterate the vital importance of ensuring that our National Security Policy
must be founded in very strong Centre-State understanding.

Besides time-bound
steps being taken to finalise the National Security Policy and establishing a
cohesive security management apparatus all over the country, it is necessary to
also critically review the professional worthiness of those who will man and
run the machinery. The traditional approach, even in filling top posts in the
Home and Defence Ministries, has been to appoint the best available officer,
notwithstanding that such a functionary may not have had any past experience at
all of working in the security administration arena. The result of such an
ad-hoc approach has been that officials of varied different backgrounds with no
past experience get deployed in the various security administration departments
and agencies. Needless to say, the best among such randomly picked up officers,
with no past training and limited tenures, cannot deal meaningfully with the
growingly complex security related issues which our country faces.

Security
management

In 2000, I was
asked to chair a Task Force to examine issues relating to internal security. In
the report, one of my recommendations was to draw from all the services, in the
Centre and the States, including the armed forces, and establish a dedicated
cadre whose members would undergo relevant training before being deployed in
the arena of national security administration. Consequently, an officer of this
specialised cadre may spend his entire career working in the Home or Defence
Ministries or in any other security management organisation. After extensive
consideration by a Group of Ministers, chaired by the then Deputy Prime
Minister, this recommendation was accepted. The fact that this decision has not
been implemented in the past 14 years reflects the importance which is devoted
to security management in our country.

I recommend that
no further time should be lost in setting up a National Security Administrative
Service and firm Centre-State understanding arrived at for members of this
cadre to be deployed for manning the nationwide security management apparatus.

There are many
other concerns about National Security Management. I shall very briefly comment
on a few issues.

Criminal cases,
even those which relate to the most heinous offences, take years to be concluded
and, furthermore, only a small percentage result in convictions and deterrent
punishments because of the prolonged delays and serious deficiencies in the
investigative, prosecution and trial procedures. As reported, several million
criminal cases continue to be pending all over the country, every year. It is
also a matter for serious concern that, progressively, corruption has firmly
enveloped the cutting edge of the judicial system. And an inefficient and
corrupt judicial system cannot be expected to timely punish offenders to
generate the kind of deterrence which is essential for effective National
Security Management.

Another arena of
serious concern relates to the continuing failure of the States to implement
vital police reforms. Regrettably, police forces in many States of the country
are still being run on the basis of the 1861 Police Act! Needless to say, if
national security is to be effectively managed, the States must seriously
discharge their constitutional responsibility and maintain adequately trained,
equipped and highly professional civil and armed police forces in adequate
strength. Also, the management of the police organisations must be totally free
from political interference of any kind.

Corruption erodes
the very foundations of the rule of law and the Constitution and cuts at the
roots of National Security Management. The common man’s loss of faith and trust
in the functioning of the governmental apparatus generates anger, disgust,
helplessness and, finally, a species of despair which leads to alienation and
adoption of the gun culture.

Corruption also
leads to the subversion of the governance apparatus. Many years ago, in 1993, I
chaired a committee whose report, later referred to as the Criminal Nexus
Report or the Vohra Committee Report, had concluded that the nexus between
corrupt politicians, dishonest public servants and the mafia networks was
subverting the constitutional framework and displacing the duly established
authority in several parts of India. Over two decades have since elapsed and,
undoubtedly, the criminal nexus has enlarged its network and become far
stronger.

I would conclude
by stressing that there is no more time to be lost. We must establish a clearly
bipartisan approach urgently to:

Finalise and promulgate a National Security
Policy which is based on deep-rooted understanding between New Delhi and the
States.